• False Creek at night

Our Successes

Driving Charges

R. vs. J.X. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Driving while prohibited (MVA).

Issue: Whether the delay in approving the charge was relevant to our client’s right to a speedy trial.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a valid driver’s licence. Rather than a 12 month driving prohibition and 10 penalty points, our client was sentenced to a 3 month driving prohibition and received only 3 penalty points.

R. vs. J.H. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charge: Failing to stop at an accident resulting in bodily harm.

Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence, our client’s background and his extreme remorse, whether a jail sentence was warranted.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was ble to direct our client through a course of psychological counselling and was able to persuade Crown counsel to agree to a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a 12 month conditional sentence. No jail.

R. vs. B.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Impaired Driving.

Issue: Whether Crown counsel could prove the impaired driving offence in light of evidence brought forward by Mr. Gauthier which suggested that our client did not voluntarily consume the drug that may have contributed to the the manner of his driving and the ensuing accident.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of dangerous operation and, rather than being convicted of impaired driving, our client was granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. A.L. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Impaired Driving Causing Death; Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm.

Issue: What would be the appropriate sentence, considering the aggravating (high speed, MVA record  & high BAC) and the mitigating factors (genuine remorse).

Result: Rather than a sentence in the range of 8 years, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel and the Court, to impose a sentence of 40 months jail, and a 7 year driving prohibiton.

R. vs. R.V. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.

Issue: Given our client’s circumstances and the circumstances in which he drove, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.

Result: Mr. Mines presented our client’s background information to Crown and was able to persuade Crown to procceed on the lesser charge of Driving without a valid drivers’ licence. Rather than a 12 month minimum driving prohibition, our client was sentenced to a nighttime driving prohibition from 10 pm to 6 am.

R. vs. C. E. – Courtenay Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prohibited driving charge which carries a mandatory minimum one year driving prohibition.

Result: Mr. Johnston was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed with the lesser offence of  driving without a valid licence. Our client was sentenced to a driving prohibition of only one month.

R.M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside prohibition.

Issue: Whether the police report established, on balance, that our client had refused to provide a breath sample during a roadside impaired driving investigation.

Result: The adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines’ submissions that our client’s evidence was more reliable than the evidence set out in the Police Report to the Superintendent. The 90 day driving prohibition was overturned and our client was ruled eligible to resume driving.

R. vs. P.N. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Dangerous Driving Causing Death.

Issue: Whether Crown could prove that our client had the necessary intent to prove that she was guilty of the criminal charge.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed under the Motor Vehicle Act rather than the Criminal Code. After hearing Mr. Mines’  submissions, the Court sentenced our client to 60 days to be served on weekends. The Crown had originally sought a sentence in the range of 2 years.

R. vs. S.L. – ICBC Investigation

Charges: Failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

Issue: Whether our client was obligated to provide a possibly incriminating  statement to the adjuster that could have led to criminal charges and a loss of  insurance coverage.

Result:  Mr. Mines was able to provide the required information to ICBC our client’s behalf. No charges were  recommended. No loss of insurance coverage.

R. vs. S.M.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a criminal conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.

Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed under the Motor Vehicle Act rather than the Criminal Code. After gearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a $100 fine and a 3 year driving prohibition. No criminal record. No jail.

R. vs. N.A. – Vancouver Traffic Court

Charges: Speeding (MVA).

Issue: Whether the police officer could prove that our client was speeding, and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the trial.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to the police investigator that led to the officer withdrawing the violation ticket prior to the trial. The lack of this conviction prevented our client from a significant driving prohibition.

R. vs. R.P. – West Vancouver Police investigation.

Charge: Failing to remain at the scene of a motor vehicle accident.

Issue: Whether police would be able to prove that our client was the driver of the vehicle that was abandoned after the accident.

Result: Mr Johnson was able to guide our client through the investigation and was able to persuade police to issue our client an MVA ticket, payable by a fine, to our client as the vehicle owner. No criminal charges approved. No driving prohibition.